> so one of the main benefits of Rust is irrelevant

Not sure what you mean with this comment. Even in a context like this, Rust has a lot of safety benefits, but yes you don't have access to the stdlib, and are restricted to core.

I think parent meant "one of the main benefits" = safety not as useful because anyway no dynamic allocations are needed to implement a basic flight control algorithm.

It also helps with other references, shared mutability, UB, etc.

Allocation and deallocation focuses on small sliver of safety, but yes, That’s not a concern in that context.

And the much more stringent error checking, as I don't want a null pointer making my quad mow people down.

There was a comment in another thread that talked about the benefits of using the ownership mechanism to control access to all the I/O. It's possible that Rust is useful to manage not just memory, but all kinds of hardware resources.

As someone who has reviewed, debugged and fixed ton of issues in embedded code before, I strongly have to disagree. There are tons of memory issues that can also happen without dynamic allocations. Invalidated pointers to the stack are a prime example. Multithreading issues (on an RTOS) another one. And forgetting to release resources (e.g. a RTOS mutex lock) is yet another one.